Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Most paediatric myopia intervention trials report two primary outcomes: axial length and cycloplegic autorefraction. Having one single primary outcome would increase trial efficiency, reduce participant burden, and may improve trial retention. This article aims to evaluate precision of axial length and cycloplegic autorefraction and to explore eye care professionals’ and young people’s views of cycloplegia.</p> Methods <p>Mixed methods study with meta-analysis of axial length and cycloplegic spherical equivalent measurements reported by paediatric myopia treatment trials; interviews with eye care professionals; engagement/involvement discussion with children and young people.</p> Results <p>In the meta-analysis, mean effect size (standard error, SE) was −0.52 (0.12, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.76 to −0.29) for axial length and 0.49 (0.11, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, CI 0.27 to 0.71) for cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction. Difference in mean point estimates was 0.033, SE of the difference 0.164 (CI −0.29 to +0.535). With <i>t</i>-statistic (mean difference/SE of mean difference) of 0.20, two-tailed <i>p</i> value was 0.84. Eye care professionals report that children dislike cycloplegia, describing discomfort, distress, and potential refusal to attend follow-up appointments. Children and young people describe pain and discomfort, remember prolonged effects such as blurred vision and light sensitivity, and complain about receiving insufficient information about adverse effects.</p> Conclusions <p>Whilst the precision of axial length and cycloplegic autorefraction spherical equivalent measurements is similar, cycloplegic autorefraction requires longer study visits and inflicts more discomfort. In the design of future trials, researchers, funders, and regulators should consider increasing trial efficiency by selecting axial length as primary outcome and removing cycloplegic refraction from follow-up assessments.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Pinpointing precision: axial length and refraction in paediatric myopia trials—a mixed methods study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月11日

查看全文
  • Annegret H. Dahlmann-Noor,
  • Nick Freemantle

摘要

Purpose

Most paediatric myopia intervention trials report two primary outcomes: axial length and cycloplegic autorefraction. Having one single primary outcome would increase trial efficiency, reduce participant burden, and may improve trial retention. This article aims to evaluate precision of axial length and cycloplegic autorefraction and to explore eye care professionals’ and young people’s views of cycloplegia.

Methods

Mixed methods study with meta-analysis of axial length and cycloplegic spherical equivalent measurements reported by paediatric myopia treatment trials; interviews with eye care professionals; engagement/involvement discussion with children and young people.

Results

In the meta-analysis, mean effect size (standard error, SE) was −0.52 (0.12, p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.76 to −0.29) for axial length and 0.49 (0.11, p < 0.001, CI 0.27 to 0.71) for cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction. Difference in mean point estimates was 0.033, SE of the difference 0.164 (CI −0.29 to +0.535). With t-statistic (mean difference/SE of mean difference) of 0.20, two-tailed p value was 0.84. Eye care professionals report that children dislike cycloplegia, describing discomfort, distress, and potential refusal to attend follow-up appointments. Children and young people describe pain and discomfort, remember prolonged effects such as blurred vision and light sensitivity, and complain about receiving insufficient information about adverse effects.

Conclusions

Whilst the precision of axial length and cycloplegic autorefraction spherical equivalent measurements is similar, cycloplegic autorefraction requires longer study visits and inflicts more discomfort. In the design of future trials, researchers, funders, and regulators should consider increasing trial efficiency by selecting axial length as primary outcome and removing cycloplegic refraction from follow-up assessments.